Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, May 6, 2013

My Interview with Christine Smith

I recently had the pleasure of speaking with the very talented Christine Smith, author and creator of Eve’s Apple and The Princess, who was generous enough to share some of her personal experiences and political opinions with me… after warning me of having substantial misgivings with some of the “sacred cows” of the Left, I might add! It made for a truly fascinating conversation, and really broadened my perspective on several issues. I'd like to share with you all what she had to say.

(Artwork used with permission)


Christine, thank you for taking the time to speak with me.

First off, I assume "Christine Smith" is a pseudonym (as is "Eddie Cabot,") but am I correct in understanding that, as the author of two comics primarily about MtF transgendered characters, that you yourself are MtF trans?

Nope, Christine Smith is my actual name. With such a common name, who needs a pseudonym? ;') And yes, I am MTF trans.

We'll get the obvious one out of the way: How old were you when you were first aware that something was different about you in that regard?

Well, I always knew I was a girl. The first time I remember knowing something was “off” was when my sister explained the vagina/penis thing….. It’s hard to remember exactly when that was, but I think I was 3-5 years old. I was understandably bummed out. A few years later…. It must have been ’77… I saw Renee Richards discussed on the Phil Donahue show. I would have been six years old. It was the first time I had heard about transsexuals, and suddenly my feelings made sense to me. It was a moment of hope. Later that day I was in my backyard with my sister, on our tire swing as I remember it. I told her when I grew up I was going to be a woman, and she told me the-hell-I-will. Now, in her defense, I’m certain she was looking out for me, trying to protect me,and that she believed every word. She broke down for me the future she saw ahead for me: I would be a monster. I would be a pariah. I would be disowned, homeless, unloved and alone. I was not allowed to be this. So, I learned to repress, and to survive by not letting myself be known.

Where do you see yourself in terms of your transition? (Personally, I mean, not medically, which is none of anyone else's business.)

Well, I started transition at the end of the 90’s and I’m out to everyone, so I’m pretty comfy by now. Or, as much as possible, given the society in which I live.

How did family and friends react?

My parents responded supportively, although it’s worth noting that we are much more distant now than we were before. That’s not all on them, and some of it may have happened anyway in time, as I started spending holidays at home with my wife since she can’t get a week at a time off from work. We communicate sporadically, each kind of feeling we should be in touch more. My sister…. We’ve long had a strained relationship. She held on to a very strong second wave feminism opinion against transgender people for decades, well into my transition. I don’t know where her head’s at about it right now. We’re not in touch at the moment.

My friends, none of them I hung out with had a problem with it. Although it’s also worth noting that I’ve only ever had a small handful of friends at any given time. Still, their response was along the lines of ‘oh, okay then. Wanna play video games?” What’s been really wonderful is that although I used to move a lot and shed friends quite a bit, we now live in the age of social media, and I’ve been lucky enough to reconnect with friends from high school. All of them are happy for me. I’ve never had many friends, but it’s good to know that some of them were…. and are…. friends of the highest quality.

Was there anyone you’ve avoided getting in touch with, out of concern that they would be somewhat LESS than accepting?

Well, let me put it this way: The people from my past are people who went to the effort to find me. So, [yes,] that fear is still in place for everyone else.

How did you get into doing artwork, and the Comics? Do you do do it professionally?

Oh, I’ve drawn since I was able to grip a crayon. I think it’s just part of my nature to need to make things that are beautiful or at least visually interesting. Cartooning was always what appealed to me most. Professionally? Well, I illustrate Gwen Smith’s biweekly column in the Bay Area Reporter, and I’ve been paid for every book I’ve contributed to except for one that was a social action thing. But more than that? Sadly, no. Not yet.

Do you have other projects that you'd like to make people aware of?

I am in the book No Straight Lines: Four Decades Of Queer Comics Ed. Justin Hall. It is a current nominee for the Eisner award for best anthology, and you are currently able to vote on it at their website. So go! Do so! [Sorry - turns out that only professional, registered artists can vote.]

I also art done for Kate Bornstein’s My New Gender Workbook which should be out in May. We created a character together, and I drew hir in several different states, and Kate used hir to punctuate her text. It was kind of awesome to work with her. She’s someone I just adore.

Also, out later this year, an anthology of contemporary queer comics submitting original work. It’s edited by Rob Kirby whose work I was reading back in the 90’s. Plus, hey; I can say I worked with Kirby without lying now.

How much of your personal experience or journey makes it into the comics?

Oh, never doubt for a second that I’m a self-obsessed introvert. It’s all me. There’s a lot of coding and misdirection, but at core it’s all extremely personal, a way of making sense of my life. Psychological archeology, if you will.

Are any Characters based on people you know? Is there an "Author Avatar" in one of them? Where else do you find inspiration for the stories?

I think they’re all me through a different lens. I find some of myself in all of them. Self-obsessed introvert, remember? Who do I understand better than me? I suppose that if I can keep figuring out what they do next and why, I have to understand them on some level. The best way to do that is to relate to them, and that tends to mean they’re an aspect of me.

As for inspiration, a lot of it comes from the movement among parents and caregivers who are educating themselves and spreading the word and doing the best they can with an open mind for their gender nonconforming children. I am so grateful for them. They give me hope that progress will be made, and future children will be spared a lot of what I went through. Also, the children themselves. I have none of my own….. The Princess is my way to help them have it just a little easier. Sometimes one of them makes the news and I find I can fit it in very well. The Girl Scouts welcoming of little transgender girls quite obviously inspired a story. People need to think about these things, work them out in their own minds. That’s how we move forward.

Were you a regular reader of any other TG Comics before you got into doing your own? Venus Envy, by Erin Lindsay, Transgirl Diaries, by Evelyn Poor and Closetspace by Jenn Dolari, all come to mind. I'm curious if any of these (or others) particularly inspired you, or if you found the genre (if that's even the right word) to be lacking in some way.

I read Venus Envy way back when. It was the standard I felt I had to aspire to, but I very consciously wanted to do something different. Personally, I have nothing to say about passing so I don’t talk about it.. As a community standard, I find it quite backward. When people recognize that I'm trans, they may not quite understand how to interpret what they see, but they are quite decidedly seeing me for what and who I am.

At one point, I remember a kind of meta-issue of Eve's Apple where Eve was trying to cheer herself up by going on-line and reading the comments section of her "comic discussion board." Which ended up being a REALLY bad idea...


Was this in reaction to some trolling you had recieved?

Ooooh, no, I wish I could describe this strip in a noble way, but it was actually a bit bile-ridden I'm sad to say, and it came from a dark place. I hung out for years on the message board of a popular comic’s creator who is famous to his or her 'tolerant LGBT views'. I found that under the surface, this person was far from the tolerant figure they present to the world. They defended the notion that transgender murder victim Gwen Araujo deserved to be murdered and that sleeping with a trans person was the equivalent of eating a sandwich of feces. They described this as a reasonable point of view that reasonable people might have. I left their message board, and they and their moderators made up some script about how I just didn't feel SUPPORTED when they were blaming trans murder victims and comparing sex with a transperson to eating feces. They felt that my arguing against these opinions were inappropriate and intolerant. The creator had previously argued that no books with gay couples should be allowed in elementary schools. This strip was a dig at that creator and their message board because it had been a part of my life for years and I had to release it from my system. Unfortunately one thing I've learned is that you never, ever, EVER criticize a creator from the Big Two. Their fans and blindly loyal and will attack you VICIOUSLY. I spend a certain amount of time gritting my teeth at the praise this creator gets, which I believe is unearned. But, I had to blow off steam somehow, so I did that one strip. I'm sorry to say, this probably doesn't speak well for me, but what can I say? I'm human.

Sorry… "Big Two?"

Ah. Big Two= DC Comics and Marvel.

Gotcha.

Now...



With regards to the Princess, her Dad is basically a big, hairy pile of awesome. But I'm guessing he's a bit idealized. Do you think that most parents handle the situation as well as he does? What is the message behind his character?

He’s a counterpoint to Wendy. I try not to outright preach, and I don’t do an ‘essay/diary’ style comic, so I address those issues through the conflict between these characters. I decided to make him more accepting and the mother more controlling simply to go against the gender stereotypes.

Sadly, I suppose, I would guess that the more typical reaction, or arguably the best one that one could reasonably hope for, would be more along the lines of how things have worked out with Wendy. IOW: She doesn't get it, she hurts Sarah a lot (unintentionally), she's scared (etc...) but she's TRYING. Or, at least... that's how I take her. Or am I supposed to NOT like her? What's the message behind her character?

Wendy’s reacting by trying to protect, she’s trying to protect by controlling what she can, and she’s controlling what she can because she feels her power to give her baby the life she thinks would make him/her happiest slipping away. I suppose the message there is that that sometimes people do the wrong things for the right reasons. Sometimes the things that hurt us aren’t done from malice but from love. That doesn’t make it hurt less, but perhaps it means that you can have compassion for people who have done you wrong by trying to do you right.

She seems to have gotten her fair share of criticism in the comments section, but I'd be willing to bet that the haters are in their teens or 20's, without kids, and those that give her the benefit of the doubt (or credit for trying) are parents. Do you think I'm way off base on this?

I think you’re dead on with that. Those of us who have lived long enough to have regrets of our own understand even the best people can make mistakes. I probably would have hated her at that age myself. But, I’ve lived.

Princess started as a spin-off, of Eve's Apple, with Sarah making her first appearance over there. At the time, did you already have plans on creating the second comic?

By the time I was done with the second Eve’s Apple featuring Sarah, I knew. I thought about it and asked a few friends, but I had to. I was compelled to.

I remember at one point, you mentioning that the number of Princess comics surpassed Eve's Apple. And several characters from Eve's have made it over to Princess. Do you plan to continue with Eve's? (Please say, "Yes!") (Just kidding.) (Not really.) LOL

I do. I want to bring it to a satisfying conclusion at some point. I’ve not gotten to work on it for months, because I’m doing work for some of the books I’ve mentioned. To be honest, I wouldn’t mind that good fortune continuing. But some day, I wanna end it right.

In contrast to Princess, where I get the feeling that no matter what the world throws at her, things will still work out for Sarah, due to her own personal strength, and the presence of so many positive people in her life... 
 ...Eve's seems like more of a crap-sack world: Eve's life leading up to the story had to have been difficult, and she's very timid and vulnerable as it goes on; Lilith is (sorry) a bit of a bitch; Digby is in a miserable "relationship"; Candace is miserable; her girlfriend, Abelle, while content, perhaps, doesn't exactly seem happy; and even Lucy, arguably the most happy-go-lucky principle character in either story... IIRC, you bothered to actually draw the cockroaches in her apartment! (There's a question in here somewhere, hang on...) So it seems that the Princess is all rainbows and unicorns compared to Eve's, which is... well, fairly dark or bleak. Fair assessment?

Yes that’s exactly right. Eve’s world and Eve’s life is more or like mine spiced up to make it romantic and sexy. But even here, in the San Francisco Bay Area….. It’s just a really hard life. It means daily indignities and always navigating situations with a mind to the safest way through. Day after day and year after year that wears on you. It also came from a place of feeling that I could never have a place in the greater, cisgender lesbian subculture. It’s something I’ve needed, and I just never feel at home there so I just don’t really try anymore. It also comes from a feeling that no cisgender woman could ever want to be with me, or take me seriously romantically. Which, you know, I’m very happily married to the love of my life who is transgender like me, so it’s a moot question. But you know…. I’m still a queer femme and it’s hard to feel good about myself as a queer femme when I suspect I’m repulsive (or worse…. “Adorable”…..) to most other queer women. To those who don’t already know where I’m coming from, who can just appreciate me for me. To be appreciated as a woman, not just as a transgender woman. Eve’s Apple is an attempt to heal from that pain, but the whole work is colored by it.

Eve and Lilith have been on their date for, like, several months now (LOL - I did a web-comic myself for several years, and maintaining regular updates was always a challenge!) but why do I have the feeling that Lillith's just a page or two away from completely fucking up what was otherwise going to be a wonderful evening? And I supposed to LIKE Lilith? In there a happy-ever-after for Eve in all that? (If I'm violating a no-spoilers rule, we can ignore this!)

You suspect it because her story is about the same as any ‘bro’ comedy film you can name….. Learning now not to be an entitled douchebag. I think of Lilith as VERY unlikeable, but goddamn she is pure sexual chocolate. You just can’t help yourself from wanting her. At least Eve can’t. As for a happy-ever-after ending….. No promises there. This is not to say it won’t end on an optimistic note to some degree. Expect more of an “I’ve learned from my journey” ending to the series.

There's been quite a bit of art-evolution throughout both comics...


...with The Princess eventually going over to color. (Something that just doesn't seem like it would be right for Eve's Apple, if I may be so bold. LOL) Was the change to color meant to coincide with a plot point (like a Wizard of Oz moment, that I apparently missed) or was it just more of a skills/software/tools-upgrade at the time? If you continue Eve's, will it stay Black and White?

It wasn’t a Wizard of Oz moment….. The first color one marks the first strip I did digitally. I was trained exclusively in traditional media, and I liked the character of hand-drawn strips, but I figured that if I was going digital, I should embrace everything it can do, and that included going to color.

Eve’s will always be black & white. I tried color in it, and it just wasn’t Eve’s world.

The Princess features a very diverse cast - In addition to Sarah (and Mars) being trans-, you've got characters of different ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientation and religions; In particular, you've made it point to show that Sarah is Jewish. Does that come from your own faith, or was there some other reason for the decision to make her so?

This could be just a misperception of mine, but it seems like as the WWII generation passes, concern about anti-Semitism is disappearing. I just don’t see any of the young leftists worried about it, and I don’t think anti-Semitism is going away. Perhaps with the rise of evangelical atheism, religion is just considered unsavory to defend in any way? I’m honestly not sure.

When I was in grade school, I was bullied a LOT. One of the things bullies called me was “Jew” Well, I wasn’t Jewish, but that put me in a tricky place. I could, of course, vigorously deny it, but to do that would to concede that being Jewish was shameful. I could argue with them and explain I’m not but I wouldn’t care if I was…. And in fact I tried that. But bullies don’t care about that, they care about the rise they can get out of you. This left me with “Yeah okay. So?”

Finally, it’s a nod to the history of Judaism from out of Egypt today. They have faced oppressions that would make the modern leftist blush when they use the word, and they have endured and they have survived and they have remained a tribe. I find that hopeful.

The trouble is, I need to understand the faith better. I read a nice, breezy book on Islam to understand Basanti better, but everything I can find on explaining Judaism is dry and scholarly. As a result, she’s been pretty nonobservant on panel. I’d really like to be able to do better by her when it comes to her faith.

How much of a role does (or did) religion play in your life, and how has that affected (or been affected by) your decision to transition?

I was raised Baptist.

I’m guessing some of your readers will have cringed at that. Baptists are generally understood to be intolerant and ignorant. These were NOT the Baptists I was brought up with. Suffice to say, back in the day, there were more than a few ERA NOW buttons on women’s lapels in the congregation and a gay choir director. It was fairly yankee liberal. With adolescence, I stopped going to Church, stopped being a Christian. I got to that age where I learned what the Inquisition was and what the Crusades were, and I became disillusioned with the whole thing. In college, I flirted with Catholicism and Episcopal mass. I loved the high-churchiness of it, but wasn’t really able to believe. I’d come to realize that taken literally, I just could not get behind the core biblical stories. Over the years, I flirted with neopaganism, and spent some time meditating with Buddhists. As a result, my current belief system is something I call ‘spiritual gumbo’…. A bit of this and a bit of that. Thankfully, I came after a while to accept that the stories in the bible might [not?] be factually true, but metaphorical truth is also important, and I’m able to find inspiration in the Bible again. But I’m not headed to church. To people who sneer as faith by calling God an “imaginary friend” I say God is not my imaginary friend, s/he’s my METAPHORICAL friend. Metaphor is hir flesh, and I’m happy to embrace hir again.

As to how my religious history affected me……. Hmmmmm. That’s a good question. I can’t say that it played a role in my transition at all to be honest. I had taboos to cross to get to where I could transition, but I don’t recall any of those being religious based.

Prior to your marriage, had you been in other relationships, either as a male or as a female?  Were there any complications due to you being trans? Any advice (words of wisdom or warning) for those who haven’t taken that step yet?

Oh, yes. Not many romantic relationships, mind you. I was a very late bloomer, and I was in deep repression, ‘punishing’ myself for having thoughts of being a woman. By the time I started dating I was in a deep state of denial and repression, and very uncomfortable with sex. My self esteem was rock bottom and my suicidal ideation was near constant. I was making my best guess at how to act “like a guy”. I had no self-confidence, and I was entering into these relationships completely being dishonest with myself and my partner because of the fundamental lie that I was a man. Dating was a mix of longing and inability to connect due to lies and repression.

Do you have any regrets (related to transitioning, I mean)?

I regret letting so many people slip out of my life. It was easier to be alone than to share the company of others, but much lonelier and that loneliness accumulates.

Are there any aspects of your “old life” (please forgive me if that’s not the way to say it) that you miss?

I miss being able to navigate my local community with ease and without worry. I miss not being stared at wherever I go. But all of that that came with shackles, and I prefer freedom and integrity to an ’easier’ life of lies and despair.

Do you ever think about your old life or the “old you”?

No. For me it’s all part of a continuity. I never changed who I am, you know? I have no old life or new life…. It’s all my life. I know that before, I hated life and myself. I was lost in a web of compulsive lies, felt false, felt desperate, felt caged, saw no point to my life. I’m glad to be shed of that. I’m glad to live in honesty and integrity.

Do you ever catch yourself (or perhaps your wife) doing, thinking or saying something that’s like, “Ugh, typical male!”

I did for the first several years into transition. Today? Not as much. That kind of thinking always reflected self-hate. As I learn to find peace with who I was, I learn to accept myself as I am. “Typical male” kind of thinking buys into the notion that there’s a right or wrong way to be a man or a woman. I try to avoid that. I won’t say the thought never crosses my mind anymore… I just try to recognize it for what it is and let go of it.

A bit of an odd-ball question, but... To the extent that you remember your dreams (I generally DON’T) what gender are you in them? And was that always the case?

As well as I can remember them, I am one or the other, but usually that doesn’t enter into it. I think most of our dreams are pretty fluid.

Something I read recently in Chris Hazelton’s “Misfile” (a pseudo-TG web-comic of the ‘magical transformation’ variety, where the cis-male lead character was MADE female and is now basically an FtM Trans-character) struck me... Ash (the lead character) had just turned 18 and was looking back at his life (having been female for just under a year at this point) and one of the milestones he mentioned, of his losing touch with his “male” self, was that his “internal voice” started to sound like his “external voice.”

I’m assuming your “external” voice has changed? If so, has your “internal voice” changed as well? (Or is there still a male-sounding voice in your head? If it did, did you notice it when it happened? [Note: I’ll cut that short, if one of your answers precludes the other questions.]

I think it’s evolved. I don’t think that’s all due to gender transition, though. I really don’t think of the gender implied by my internal voice, I only think about my voice when I speak. In my thoughts, in my mind, there’s no confusion. It’s in interpreting my truths to be comprehensible to others that my internal critical voice enters into the picture.

Moving onto to more political topics… With regards to intolerance it seems to me that the Trans community gets the short end of every stick. You get it from the Religious Right, which is not too surprising (but to be fair, many Religious people and Religions fully embrace Trans-folk, so that’s not at all to say that Religion is “all bad” in this way!) But you also get it, as you mentioned, from many in the hardcore, feminist camp. (I’d imagine they’d hate FtM’s just a much – “gender traitors” or some such thing.) And I don’t find this to be all that surprising either. But was initially surprised how often Trans-phobia comes from the Homosexual community!

Yeah, there’s a lot of fear, spite, and acrimony between our communities. It’s a viscous cycle. Transgender expression and people were first excluded from the Christopher Street Pride Parade in 1972, because we were felt to give the “wrong impression” of the “gay and lesbian community”. We’ve been in a spiral of blame since. Some gays and lesbians saying we make them look bad or threaten their rights, trans people reacting in a way that doesn’t distinguish the difference between “some gays feel this way” and “all gays feel that way”. Speaking or writing disdainfully of the entire G&L community. The G&L community, especially those who didn’t feel that way become upset, and escalate their responses from simple discussion to defensive or aggressive tirades. We respond in kind. And on it goes, taking an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We need to break the cycle. We need to seek understanding between us. And we need to remember the bisexuals and everyone else who are on this ride with us.

So do you feel that this “LGBT” Umbrella is an appropriate grouping or more like politics making strange bedfellows? It seems like the only things linking alternative sexual orientation with non-conforming gender identity is their political opposition. And yeah… surprisingly (HA!) it’s not always a happy little alliance.

I think it’s a historical, social, and cultural alliance. It reminds us of our common history, common culture, and common movement. It recalls how our fates have been entwined in history, and it reminds us that we are stronger together than separated in our various communities. I’m a big believer in the umbrella. Solidarity is powerful. We need to embrace it.

I can't remember right now where I read it, but a while back you mentioned an incident where a representative of the Human Rights Campaign made a Trans group take down their [blue/pink rainbow flag.] Now HRC gets a lot of, I would say, well deserved praise, for their work, and I count myself as a supporter of their stated mission – which, as written, includes Transgendered people every bit as much as LGB’s. Was this an isolated incident, or rouge individual within, that the organization perhaps mishandled? Or is there a pattern of behavior that people on the outside, like me and my readers, should be aware of?

It’s a pattern. The HRC has long has a disconnect with the transgender community, and have often advanced efforts for gays and lesbians through betrayal of promises made to transgender people. Former HRC director Elizabeth Birch famously addressed transgender issues by saying: “trans inclusion will be a legislative priority over my dead body.” We have long been the bargaining chip they have discarded in order to gain concessions for themselves. My disdain for the organization is Brobdingnagian. You’ll have a difficult time finding many transgender people who support the HRC. They have been happy to take our money, but seem to have felt no actual responsibility to represent us. There is a saying in the trans community: “You can tell when the HRC bus has come to town by the transgender bodies left crushed beneath their wheels.” There is no trust between us to build upon right now. I can’t imagine that this will change anytime soon. I don’t know if it ever will.

Just one of the pitfalls of putting too much faith in a Political Organization, I guess.

Now, related to that, I’ve been a long-time fan of Dan Savage. But I also learned that a few years back, HE made some pretty trans-phobic comments in what is otherwise considered his politically, socially and sexually enlightened column. Now he’s offered a half-hearted… I won’t even say “apology,” more like just a weak “distancing” himself from those words. And to be fair to the Trans- community, I’ve never believed in forgiving someone who’s never actually apologized. (Though at the same time, some of the response form the Trans-community sounded like it would have been more appropriately aimed at MIKE Savage than DAN Savage!) But what are your thoughts on that? And is this just another unfortunate consequence of the LGBT Grouping?

Dan Savage is a tough nut. He has undeniably done some good, positive things. Also, at various points he has undeniably embraced ignorance over understanding when it comes to transgender people. I respect some things he’s done, but it's hard for me to like the man.

You recently had Digby giving Wendy some perspective on whether it’s “worse” to be Gay or Trans...

He makes some fair points, but… come on! Do you really believe that Gays have it worse that Trans-folk, or was it more a question of opening her mind a bit? It does seem a fairly common occurrence for parents of TG children to assume they’re GAY, and once they are perfectly ready to accept that, the truth throws them a bit of a curve-ball they were not expecting. And isn’t that due to homosexuality being MORE accepted, at least in THIS country? I’m confused.

I don’t believe in saying group A has it better or worse than group B, because that always comes with broad generalities. I think the truth is that you have to break it down into individual experiences. You may assume an aggregate, and there may be statistics that might back some of this up, but I think that a lot of factors influence who has it worse as individuals. Who has a harder life, a gay kid whose family disowns her and casts her out, or the transgender child being raised by supportive, loving parents who tell her every day that they are behind her come what may?

One of my biggest frustrations with the Left is that they seem to want to break down “oppression” and “privilege” into a mathematical equation, so we can say A > B. Person A has it worse than person B based on trait X. Human beings cannot be generalized that way. It doesn’t bear out. Our experiences defy neat categorization. Individuals are influenced by thousands, millions of factors. Some are these factors are influenced by demographics but ONLY some are. Why do we need to rank each other on the ease or difficulty of our lives based on any given trait? It’s ridiculous. People are unique harmonies created by the totality of their individual experiences.

What if I were to say (let’s call it hypothetical right now… it might or might not be true in the story) that Digby ran away at 14 from fundamentalist parents who beat him for being gay, survived on the street turning tricks and doing hard, dangerous drugs, weathering physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, assault, and addiction? Who has or had it worse in that case…. him or Sarah? His experience as a gay kid, the things he lost and the abuse and degradation he’d have experienced will have taken him down a far darker road than Sarah. Because ‘gay’ is only one factor, and his situation is different from hers, even beyond the matter of their identities. The notion of the mathematics of oppression is based on the belief of “all else being equal” but the truth is that’s a lie, because all else is NEVER equal. It never will be. That doesn’t negate statistics such as murder rates, unemployment or suicide percentages. It just recalls that individuals are individuals, not generic members of any group they belong to.

What I was trying to say is that being gay often leads to situations that are difficult to weather. What I meant is that being queer, for most of us, is hard. Period. No need to compare or attempt to qualify it or determine who “wins” the award for Most Oppressed. That helps no one but those who wish us to remain separate. It is how we divide ourselves, and we need to remember that the other side of the coin from being divided is being conquered. Why not just respect each other’s journeys without qualification or holding them up to the yardstick of our own experiences?

An excellent point.

This also reflects a period of my life where I felt if I could only direct the scary Trans feeling I was repressing and transform myself into “just” a gay man, I might have it easier. This of course was foolish on so many grounds, and took me some places I’d not been before or since.

I was going to as you if being trans made you (or others in the trans- community) a one-issue voter(s) but then you mentioned right up front that you were opposed to some of the “sacred cows” of the Left. (For the record, this is why I prefer the term “Progressive,” as I rather think about myself as leaning FORWARD, that LEFT.) So what are some of those sacred cows? And… come on… As a transgendered person living in San Francisco, DON’T TELL ME you vote REPUBLICAN?! (*wink*) And where do trans-issues rank relative to some of those “sacred cows” that you don’t like?

Well, I’m registered to vote under the Green Party so it’s a rare thing for me to vote GOP. I’m not saying I never have, but I could probably count those votes over the years on one hand and not use all fingers.

I answered a lot about my problem with the sacred cows in the previous question. I think on the left we are obsessed with our differences at the cost of neglecting our similarities. I think we become so mesmerized by this theoretic ‘mathematics of oppression’ that too often all we can see are the things that divide us. We come to fetishize these things. We want to understand other’s ‘oppressions’ and in trying to do so we often embrace stereotypes while believing that we are gaining insight. We think that one person’s experience or opinions represent their entire group. For example I hear many non black people assert they understand the experience of black people by watching Chappelle’s Show. They honestly feel that this one man’s comedy program offers a cohesive vision of the entire African-American community and is the final word on instructing us on what values, ideals, and beliefs related to the black experience allies are supposed to embrace. Chappelle’s humor and insights can be regarded as important and I personally find him really funny, but he’s just one person and his work is satire. He exaggerates for humorous effect and to make a point, but because the humor comes from the differences between us, people who look to that as the most vital source of social commentary come to see the differences between us as the most germane issues. What about our commonalities? Where in the culture do we honor our common ground, or even seek it out? I don’t see much interest in commonalities. I see almost everyone in the left focusing on the lines that divide us, and judging those who dwell on either side. Most obviously to my life people see the division between cis and trans, and use the great oppression equation to decide which side is the good guys and which is the bad guys. The true answer to both is “we all are”.

We find ways to argue around our core values. We know we should never hate someone for what they are, but then we punish ourselves for being what we are. I hear so much along the lines of “I hate myself for being cis”, or “straight” or whatever. I see this over and over. We’d never accept hating other groups of people for being what they are, but we feel compelled to hate ourselves. We seek out the imbalances in the great oppression equation that relate specifically to our lives, and we feel the need to atone for any place where we feel we’ve had an advantage through acts of self-abuse. There’s a lot of self-flagellation going on in the left for the traditional fundamentalist reasons. We seek purity and absolution through punishing ourselves and we degrade ourselves to shed the historic burdens we feel we bear. We come to hate ourselves for what we are and we forget that we should never judge ANYONE for those things about themselves which they had no opportunity to choose.

Let’s instead come back to basic principles. All people have equal rights to life, liberty, and justice. It is unfair to judge someone based on what they are, only for what they do. No exceptions. Not even for ourselves, not even if the judgment is to our detriment and we feel we deserve it. Do not take unfair advantage. Respect everyone. If we’re to embrace Bob Marley’s ‘One Love’, that must mean for everybody, including ourselves, and that’s a beautiful thing.

I think there’s a ton of hypocrisy in the left. I see people beating their chests and loudly pronouncing their tolerance for everybody on this earth, and then I listen to them speak or watch their social media feed and it’s one constant stream of sneering at others, people they feel no need to be kind to because they have been labeled “The Enemy”. There’s constant mockery of people of faith for believing differently than they do. They sneer at people from rural communities or red states as ignorant, inbred hicks. They are literally judging people without knowing them based on one or two traits. Well, I hate to tell you guys, but that’s prejudice too. It’s great that you support me being trans and all, but out of the other side of your mouth you’re saying my mom’s an asshole because she’s from a small rural Mississippi town and goes to church? Don’t think I’ll respect you any more just because it’s only people like the rest of my family that you hate and not me. Don’t expect praise for managing not to include me among the people you judge and mock. I’ll say it again: ONE love, for ALL people.

So what are your “voting issues?”

My main voting issues right now are sensible economic recovery to erase our foreign debts, infrastructure and nation building at home, and a sustainable energy policy. Social justice issues are important to me, of course.

Do you find the current Supreme Court challenges to DOMA and California’s Prop 8 (Prop H8te, IMHO) meaningful to you and or trans-community in general? Also, perhaps an indelicate question on my part, but you are MtF, married to an MtF… that falls under “gay marriage,” correct? Were you married during that brief window that same-sex marriage was allowed in SF? Or were you already married when you or your wife began to transition?

As for the marriage issue, this is very personal. I, like most California LGBTetc folk, felt a sharp kick in the gut when our fellow Californians withdrew our right to equality under the law. MTF/MTF marriage absolutely falls under the same sex category legally… we had both long since changed our gender status legally. And, to answer your question, we’d only dated with both of us identified as women. My wife and I had been together many years, and the first day we were able to get a marriage license we were at our county courthouse with tons of other couples and a contingent from Westboro. We were married in June and I was happier than I had ever been in this life. And then Prop 8 happened. The loss of those rights felt like losing a limb. The results of the vote felt like a personal condemnation of our love. I’m misting up as I type this.

Another issue that’s important to me is a transgender inclusive Employment Discrimination Act. Although we’ve had to fight the HRC’s attempts to disinclude us, the momentum seems to be on our side for inclusion. But, this congress doesn’t want to cooperate on ANYTHING, so it’s probably going to be on the table for years to come.

Something that always fascinates me about so many political/social groups are the differences between the groups’ external politics (which are fairly well understood, predictable and universal) and their internal politics. I see a lot of this within the Autism community, having two autistic sons: We all want insurance coverage, better services, more support in schools, etc… But man, you get into talk about Vaccines, Gluten-free diets, neural diversity… WOW. You’re in for fight! LOL. And most of the time, the internal politics are things outsiders aren’t even AWARE of. So I’d like to ask you about some of your stances on these. (And if you fear the wrath of your comrades, please feel free to not touch any these with a 10’ pole!)

I’ve spent 20 years teaching Special Ed or otherwise working with developmentally disabled people, so I feel you there. We have some big divisions in the trans community. Some people think drag has no place among us, which reminds me of the Christopher Street Parade in 1972. People trying to distance themselves from those they find embarrassing. There’s a whole lot of internal squabbles. Most of them are quite undignified, so I’ll leave them alone. Suffice to say, whatever the question, it’s a good guess I’ll side with inclusivity. United we stand.

You mentioned having no strong feelings about passing, but what about going stealth? If someone does truly pass, 100%, do they owe it to anyone (their partner, or their fellow trans-folk) to be out and open about their gender identity?

I don’t think they owe it. It seems like something that would make a relationship with someone else hard, but I honestly don’t know all the issues with that so I won’t comment further. Sometimes stealth is necessary for us to survive in our lives and in our communities. On the other hand, people who choose to be out and make the sacrifices that their lives require are doing a service to the community and to their culture, and they deserve to be respected for that. That’s not to cast shame on those who are unable or unwilling or to imply that they’re doing anything wrong or aren’t brave. Everyone’s experience is unique, so no judgment. On the other hand, when we come out it tends to the greater social good and requires an amount of personal sacrifice. It makes things just a bit easier for our fellow travelers and helps change the culture. That deserves to be honored. It’s a touchy subject, making that distinction, but I think it’s important to make while respecting all of our brave hearts.

Is it ever appropriate for a cisgendered person to express their support for a trans-person by, for example, discreetly saying something to the effect of “I support you” (etc..)? Or is that just akin to clocking someone, and will generally do more harm than good?

Sure. Although you should probably wait until they out themselves to you, even if it’s quite apparent to you that they’re Trans. We tend to walk on eggshells around passing, because that’s frequently equivalent to our safety. To be read can be frightening. I am 6’2” and am largely the size of a small mountain. I don’t pass at all, but I still get nervous when someone points that out to me.

What about the idea that one should absolutely undergo the various surgeries “required” to be accepted in their chosen gender? (To be a “reel womyn” as Evelyn Poor so brilliantly satirizes in TGD.) Any strong feelings one way or the other about non-ops?

My opinion is this: unless you’re their doctor or sex partner, you have no pressing need to know what someone else’s genitals are shaped like, nor do you have any right to know. Just let people live their own lives, doing what they need to do to make their life worth living. If it’s not your business, don’t pry. I think the only people whose opinions matter on non op people’s gender and medical choices is their own. The rest of us should get over any inclination we have to introduce pressure to conform or to explain their choices. We haven’t the right to do so. Live and let live. One love.

I'd like to know your thoughts on the inclusion of Transgenderism (or “Gender Dysmorphic Disorder,” IIRC) in the DSM. And let just say that I’m not completely stupid (only partially): I DO realize that categorizing it under “mental illness” carries a social stigma. But it’s one that, as the parent of two autistic children, who takes antidepressants himself, and has had three different family members (none related to each other by blood) spend time in-patients at a psychiatric hospital, one of which was due to a suicide attempt… I’m pretty much over. Also, does it not lend a certain legitimacy to the “condition,” that is can actually BE diagnosed, that some people may not otherwise grant it? Also, unlike homosexuality, which was removed a generation ago, I hardly need a psychologist to tell my I’m gay. (I just need an open mind, and a willing partner.) And there’s no “treatment" required either. (Again, just an open mind, and a willing partner.) It just seems to me that a young transgendered person might have a harder time figuring things out (as you described in your own experience) and might benefit from discussing things with someone who understands these things, and has studied them. Plus there the whole thing with hormones, surgery, etc… I know that no one likes “gate-keepers” but having an official “diagnosis” also OPENS some of those gates, no? And can help develop and improve the standard of care, even (possibly) leading to better insurance coverage. (Who knows?) So TO ME, it seems like, for all its faults, the Trans-community is still better off, net-and-net, keeping it IN. But then… it doesn’t affect ME, so it’s not like I’m really entitled to an opinion on the matter. What’s yours?

I can see both sides. I tend to side with removing the category because I feel it’s based on the fundamental dishonesty that we are sick by virtue of being who we are. I would note, however, that there needs to be a study of the cocktail of psychological issues that transgender people tend to acquire by virtue of being in a culture that is hostile to gender diversity. For instance, some argue that we almost uniformly manifest our experiences in this culture in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder. I’d love there to be study focusing on what we’ve endured rather than simply that we exist. There is probably an argument for THAT being the included definition. Gender dysphoria should be understood to mean that the pain comes not from being who and what we are but from what has happened to us, what we’ve endured, from the time we could walk to what happened when we placed our order at Starbucks just now.

Just in general, what are some things CIS people really need to know (or accept?) that most still don’t? What are your number one or two pet peeves / fears / needs / goals, on this front?

The big one? We pee too. THAT’S why we’re in the ladies’/gentlemen’s toilet. ;’)

What is the best way to deal with those who believe that being Trans, or gay for that matter, is somehow a “choice?” I’ve had a couple of particularly thick-skulled thorns in my side this past year or so, and despite arguing this seven ways ‘til Sunday, I just CAN’T get through to these guys! Any advice? (I mean… WTF, right?)

Since we talked about religion earlier, let me answer this with a Bible verse:

Matthew 7:6 “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

Some folks just aren’t going to listen to your truth and they’ll choose willful ignorance instead. Screw ‘em. You can’t reach everyone. Of course, this is easier for adults than for kids and easier for strangers than it is for family. But if people aren’t going to be willing to listen, learn, and respect you for who and what you are. They won’t respect you no matter WHAT you do. If they won’t believe you when you tell them who and what you are, then let them go. Maybe someday they’ll come back. Maybe not.

Mind you….. This doesn’t make you less lonely.

No, I imagine that it wouldn’t.

Well that’s about all I’ve got. Is there anything you’d like to add?

I just want to say for the record that this has been an interesting interview with some great questions, so thank you.

Well thank you for taking the time to speak with me. I definitely have a new perspective on many of these matters. I appreciate you sharing your feelings and experiences and it’s been a very interesting conversation!

You can find Christine’s Web-Comics at:

http://www.drunkduck.com/Eves_Apple/ and http://www.drunkduck.com/The_Princess/

and two the books she's worked in are available on Amazon:

No Straight Lines: Four Decades Of Queer Comics, by Justin Hall
My New Gender Workbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Achieving World Peace Through Gender Anarchy and Sex Positivity, by Kate Bornstein

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Terrorism by the numbers...

Haven't posted in a while, but I needed a place to quickly stash [the following] in the wake of the attrocious media coverage of the Boston marathon bombing, and the nearly non-exsistant coverage of the West, Texas plant explposuon which killed and injured about twice as many people, and cause many times the amount of property damage. (But, of course, was attributable to INDUSTRY, rather that TERRORISM, so... BEHOLD: YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA!)

---------------------------------

Consider this…


According to Wikipedia there have been 8969 people killed by Islamic Terrorists since 1970. Over roughly 40 years, that comes out to about 224 people per year, on average. While (admittedly) only a partial list, that number is worldwide, and only considers deaths from ISLAMIC terrorists. (Obviously, there are many others.)

I’m sure I won’t have to make the case here that “all terrorists are NOT, in fact, Muslim.” But roughly what percentage of Muslims are terrorists? Is Islam really so inherently violent a religion that it engenders a culture of death on so large a scale?

Well, there are approximately a Billion Muslims in the world today. If we assume even that every single one of the above deaths was attributable to just one, single, separate terrorist (an absurd assumption, as terrorism USUALLY involves one person killing multiple victims) then even if every one of them were alive and active today, they would still represent just under 0.001% of the world’s Muslim population. And if you are inclined to believe that even 1% of the world’s Muslim population were radicalized enough to kill (suicide bomb, etc…) consider that this would put Al-Quaeda’s numbers at about 10 Million, world-wide – or just over six and a half times the size of the entire active U.S. Military. If that seems far-fetched, it should. After all, WE’RE the ones “winning” the war on terror: Estimates of the Iraqi death toll due to the 2003-2012 Iraq War generally range from 100,000 to 150,000 – twelve and a half times as many killed in nine years as the terrorists killed, worldwide, in FORTY. Even the 4486 U.S. Soldiers that were killed is an astounding number: that’s almost 500 per year, on average nearly twice as many as the terrorists had been killing on their own! IOW: You’re twice as likely to die FIGHTING terrorist as you are to die from one as a civilian.

Some other numbers to consider:

~3000 people killed on 9/11 in NYC, a city of ~9,000,000 people = 0.0003% chance of being killed by a terrorist, if you were IN NEW YORK CITY, ON 9/11 - the target city, on the day of the worst terrorist attack in history!

By comparison, about 30,000 people die every year in the U.S. alone, from traffic accidents…

…about 13,000 are the victims of homicide…

…and about 35,000 were the victims of suicide.

About 440,000 deaths are attributable to tobacco usage (including secondhand smoke), and about 300,000 are attributable to obesity.

And that’s EVERY YEAR, in THIS COUNTRY ALONE! Compared to 8969, worldwide over FORTY+ YEARS!

Tell me again WHY I should be so excited about terrorism?

Friday, March 22, 2013

There you have it...

Nope. No war on women. No culture of Rape. 

BEHOLD: YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA!!!

Thursday, March 21, 2013

And it only gets worse...

NPR's story about Women in the Military continued today, focusing on Sexual Assault for the second day.  For the record, Sexual Assault is only a small part of a much larger look at the lives and roles of women in the Military, but considering the magnitude of the crimes, and the repeated systematic cover-ups that have been going on for decades now, over Tens of Thousands of cases, according the the Pentagon's own  research, this is NOT a issue that deserves to disappear after the overall story is finished.

This segment focused on Myla Haider, who had been raped and did not report it.  Well into a successful career and serving in the Military Police, a case was brought against the officer who raped her. There were dozens of women on this case, most of whom were raped AFTER she was. So she testified. And after that? Here career was over. The next time she testified - in an unrelated case - the defense tainted her testimony with what was essentially an ad hominen attack: "You were a rape victim yourself correct?"

Suddenly Commendation turned into Reprimands and she was forced out.  This is unfortunately the RULE, rather than the exception: NO ONE gets to report thier rape AND keep their career. It's utterly sickening.
And the officer that raped her and so many others? Was not convicted.

The most extreme example was in the Aviano Case, in which the presiding General single-handedly threw out a JURY CONVICTION, and lessened the offense.

The story quoted this "brilliant" response from Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who is also a lawyer in the Air Force Reserve, says Aviano is an extremely rare case — and the system shouldn't change.


"We have generally held the view that the one person that has the power to determine good order and discipline is the military commander," Graham said.
Well, I have a proposal for The Right, Honorable Senator Graham...

I say we lock him in a room with a large, violent felon; a prisoner with a long history of sexual assaulting other inmates.  Then, when The Senator complains, we so thoroughly impugn his word, judgement and honor that he is no longer capable of functioning in the Senate, and is forced to leave his career behind. The, at trial, even after his rapist is convicted, we'll give some "Liberal," "Activist" Judge carte-blanche to throw out the Conviction, whole cloth. Which he will do.

And THEN, perhaps after offering the Good Senator some ointment, we can ask him how he feels about the Military's system of Justice when it comes to handling Rape cases.

-----------------

A quick side note... I should say that moments like this are why Lindsey Graham is like the lowest ranking person on my "List of Republicans that I still like."  Compared to so many others, I think Lindsey Graham is generally a decent and compentant Senator. There are SO MANY TIMES I've heard him say something and and have thought, "WOW! He's so right! I wish more Republicans thought like this guy!" And then like five seconds later he RUINS it by saying something completely fucking stupid.  So, yeah, I still like him. But it's like a 51% to 49% judgement. He's bascially the CUTOFF, the guy on the bubble (as opposed to IN IT) in terms of my being able to tolerate Republicans. 

(If any anonymous posters are curious, some of the others over the years would include Arlen Spectre, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain (not since ~2000 though) Lincoln Chafee, George H.W. Bush, and Colin Powell (pre-U.N. Speech). And, more historically, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower were very good Presdients as well.)

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Support the troops?!

An absolutely horrifying story this morning on NPR regarding women serving in our Military. According to Pentagon research, one in four women in our military will be sexually assaulted by a fellow male soldier or officer. What more, the incidence of repeated rapes is many times higher than that of the general population and the perpetrators tend to be these women’s direct superior officers – they very people that they not only depend on for their paycheck, evaluations and career advancement, but also the very people they would be reported to report the rapes to!


Now I can already hear, or rather, I should say that I have already heard the Conservative response: “Well, what did you expect to happen?! This is why women shouldn’t be there in the first place!”

(Yes, I actually heard that from a bona fide, Right-Wing, Conservative Republican, and (somewhat to my regret) DID NOT immediately hit him in the head with a brick. But Conservatives blaming the victim for their rape is nothing new. American has a culture of rape (look it up, I’m not going to sift through literally THOUSANDS of articles to explain it) and it fits in very nicely with the Republican War on women. (No abortion services for Rape Victims, put the victim on trial, boys will be boys, etc…) So it’s hardly surprising that the first I heard on the matter would to suggest that the best way to solve the problem would be to further punish women, in general, for the criminal sexual behavior of men.

Well, being less of a complete and utter ass-wipe myself, I’m more inclined to agree with General Patton, who says that what is really needed is a “culture change.”

Well, first of all… “YA THINK?!”

And second of all, GOOD LUCK, changing the culture of an inherently Conservative institution that the Right Wing of this country repeatedly co-ops politically and claims monopolistic influence over. That’s bullshit, of course, but there no denying that “Culture change,” especially as it comes to equal rights for women, is an inherently Liberal or Progressive pastime while the Military, especially in its current form, is inherently Conservative. The General has his work cut out for him.

BTW… The asshole who made the comment that I repeated above? Said it in response to a story about rape in the Military that came out during the CLINTON Administration. So… going on 20 years ago. Yeah.

Support the troops?

Maybe we should start by not repeatedly raping the shit out them.

As for any culture change? It’s really very simple. Right now? Our military is WORSE than the Catholic Church ever was. FAR worse. You read that right. See I’m not one to assume that a despicable crime is always automatically worse simply because minors or children were involved. The abuse of power here is not only far more egregious, as these men had actual, official and legal authority over these women, and were allowed to essentially police themselves, but also far more wide spread: I never saw anything suggesting that ONE IN FOUR Altar Boys were being raped! But the important take-away here is that they can certainly learn from the mistakes of that other great Conservative intuition that couldn’t seem to stop its members from raping people. The solution is really very simple: (1) Protect and compensate the victims; (2) Charge the perpetrators (you know: the RAPISTS) with Rape, Dereliction of Duty (treason, war crimes, etc…), give them a dishonorable discharge, relieve them of their pension and benefits and throw them in jail (or as Thomas Dubois calls it, “REAL, ANAL-RAPE PRISION!”) for the rest of their natural lives.

Simple. Even sounds like the kind of ‘common sense’ thing a Conservative might say, no? (Albeit about some other, relatively nonexistent problem.)

So please: Support our troops… and STOP RAPING THEM.

Monday, March 18, 2013

A "pricelss" clip I was emailed...

I was e-mailed the following clip.

It was sent with the message:

"Isn't it interesting that the question out of Donahue's mouth some thirty
one years ago, is one of the primary issues Obama ran on and pushes
almost daily?
"

(The clip blow is from youtube, but he email actually linked here. Same clip)
 


The blog, includes the following commentary:

Pretty interesting clip…even though it is 30 years old, the content is “timeless” If you don't think we have been going aroud on the same argument for years this will put it into perspective. Leave it to an economist to clear things up. Wow! Talk about a clear cut look at the way the world operates. This is Phil Donahue interviewing Milton Friedman thirty years ago. The audience is notably silent.

Now I'm going to say a couple of things that will probably shock my Conservative readers, and possibly some of my liberal ones. I like to burninsh my centrist cred from time to time, and this post is going to be one of those times.

First of All: Milton Friedman was right.

And no, I'm certainly no fan of Friedman, nor am I a supply-sider. I'm a Keynsian, and unlike 99% of people of commenter who start out admitting they know nothing about economics, I have a graduate degree in Business, and three Graduate Level classes from the University of Michigan, which I solidly aced on my to graduating with honors. So i DO know a little bit about economics.  And it's very simple: Keynes was right, Krugman is right, and their detractors range between liars, thieves and morons.

But... Every thing Friedman said in this clip? It's 100% correct.

And Phil Donahue is an idiot.

No, not in general. Generally I have no problem with Donahue.  But here's the thing: ANYONE who is talking about "socialism" in this day and age is a FUCKING MORON.  Hear me out...

If you are a Liberal, Progressive, Democrat, etc... talking about it? I'll clue you in: IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK!  OK?  As a designed system it looks great, on paper anyway. But you're trusting humans to run things, and humans are, at best, short-sighted and fallible. At worst they're greedy, money-grubbing, evil and corrupt.  And even if you could get past THAT part of human nature, the laws of supply and demand were not invented by Partisan Republicans. They're based on observations of COLLECTIVE HUMAN BEHAVIOR and you simply cannot fight them for very long. They're like gravity: You can go against them for a while (climb a ladder, fly a plane) but eventually you are going to pulled back to market equilibrium (the ground.) It's inevitable.

Now... To be honest, I'll be somewhat disappointed if I really have to argue that point with that many Liberals. I really said all that so that there's some chance that Conservative readers will drop their idiotic assumption that anyone not actively  pining for the glory days of George W. Bush (with a McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan sticker on their bumper) must be some kind of wild-eyed Socialist. I'm guessing there really aren't that many people out there who REALLY believe Socialism is the way to go, especially if they actually understand history and/or economics.

Which brings me to the reason that anyone who is Conservative, Libertarian, Republicans, Tea-Bagger, etc... and is talking about Socialism is also a fucking moron:

NOBODY ON THE LEFT (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) IN THIS COUNTRY IS PROPOSING ANYTHING SOCIALIST OR TALKING ABOUT SOCIALISM!!!

Show me the Socialism! Show where Obama, or Pelosi, or ANY Democrat has proposed that the State take control of, and run, private companies! SHOW ME! It's not fucking happening!  And far from the e-mails claims that Obama "ran on" this [socialism? redistribution?] and "pushes [it] almost daily;" back in the real world, the only legislation Obama has ever signed regarding taxes LOWERED THEM (for everyone) and that remains unchanged going forward. (More on that in a moment.) And his big health care system? "Obamacare"? Hardly a Socialized, government takeover: It owes it origin to the Right-Wing Heritage Foundation, it was pushed by Republicans during the Clinton years, and implemented by Governor Romney, the Republican candidate for President last year! And as much as I've heard the Rigth talk about Obama's plans for "redistribution," you know who I NEVER heard speak of it? Even ONCE?

Barack Obama.
See... What the idiot Right in this country doesn't understand (and/or doesn't want the voting public to understand) is the argument is not one of Capitalism vs. Socialism. It isn't. And if you think it is, you're an idiot. The Republican are no more the great defenders of Capitalism, anymore than the Democrats are it's Detractors.  The argument is simply on of laissez-faire Capitalism versus regulated Capitalism.

Obama has done NOTHING to stop or curtail "free enterprise,"  "capitalism," "entrepreneurialism" or anything else. Nothing. Zip. Nada.  And as for Keynes? How could Keynes possibly be a socialist? Aside from the fact that he was himself an avowed critic of Socialism, his economic models are based ENTIRELY on a Capitalist Free-Market economy!  Being a "Keynesian" MEANS you're a Capitalist!  Only, you one that wants the Government to do what it can to help out, and you're one that realizes that both the supply side AND the demand side are needed for a society to grow economically!  See, while you're two choices here (being Democrat or Republican) are in fact "Keynesianism" or "Supply-Side," Keynesianism is NOT the opposite of Supply-side.  Supply-side simply looks at only ONE-HALF of the Keynes model.

Kind of like building a baseball team on Pitching alone, only to have to face another team that ha equally good pitching, AND phenomenal hitting as well. And reasonably intelligent person knows you need BOTH.  Consider the 1940's-1960's, those "good old days" of the "greatest generation" and the "baby boom."  You had FDR-D, Truman-D, Eisenhower-Rino, JFK-D, LBJ-D and 1 Year of Nixon-r. You had strong labor unions, a top tier tax rate ranging from 70%-90%, and each President had, among his greatest accomplishments, things that are considered Liberal by today's standards!
Now ironically, that video was shot in 1979, one year before the Election of Ronald W. Regan. And what has happened in the 34 years since then?  Unions have been broken, tariffs have been lifted, Top-tier tax rates has fallen, deficits has skyrocketed, and middle class wages have stagnated, at best, and for the majority of Americans, haven't even kept up with the cost of living! And while the country, in total, has done "better" almost all of that benefit has accumulated at the top!

And that's exactly what you'd expect from supply-side economics.

(Historically, it's also what generally becomes of Socialist States as well - our old "Corporate Masters" merely move into their new Government Roles, now having official, codified, legal power, insteadof just the power that comes unofficially with great wealth.)

Again: It's not about Capitalism versus Socialism. It's about common-sense regulations, based on sound science, and taxation and spending based on sound economical principles, matched the needs of the country, or letting the old, fat, rich, white, men (think Roger Ailes) take and keep all the money!

And if you think that's an exaggeration, I defy you to show me that it's anywhere close to the ones calling Obama, Krugman or Keynes, "Socialists."

------------------

*** Obama has lowered taxes. I said I'd get to that.  Remember that in 2001, President Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Part of this Bill became known as the "Bush Tax Cuts."  They lowered taxes, for everyone, from where they were under Clinton, but were heavily favored towards the rich, exploded the deficit and did little to stimulate the economy, relative to their cost.  (All facts - you can look 'em up.)  One key part of this legislation however, was that they were only suppose to go for TEN YEARS. Then, according to that very law, voted for by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, taxes would revert back to their previous levels - for EVERYONE - in 2011.

Then, one wrecked economy later, President Obama comes along. And he needs to get the economy going again, so as part of the Stimulus he does two things: (1) He extends the Bush Tax Cuts through 2012.  (NOTE: If he does nothing,PREEXISTING LAW has them at a higher rate. His actions therefore LOWERED them.) And (2) he temporarily lowers the payroll tax. Not that's not REALLY a "tax cut," since you'll still owe the same amount in the end, but it does put more money in your pocket in the meantime. In any case, President Obama only took action to LOWER taxes, relative to existing law.

And what about now?  What about the law he just signed RAISING taxes on the top 1%?!

Really?!

>Once again, let's go back to existing law: In 2013, without any action required from the President, tax rates would go back to what they were under President Clinton.  So what action did he take? He signed a law that LOWERED taxes.

For the bottom 99%? What about those at the top? Those poor, suffering 1%'ers?

Nope. For EVERYONE.

>EVERYONE is paying a lower tax rate than they would have been absent any action from the President, even those top 1%'ers who saw that top tier tax rate go up.

How's that, you ask?

It's called our progressive taxation system. (And it was first advocated by every Right Wingers second favorite economist, Adam Smith, I might add.)See... you know how all those "flat tax" advocates keep saying that we should all pay the same rate? Well, what they're hoping you don't know is that we ALREADY DO!

My first $8700 is taxed at 10%. So is Yankee Third Baseman Alex Rodriguez's.
My earned income between $8,700 and $35,350 is taxed at 15%. So is Donal Trump's.
My earned income between $35,350 to $85,650 is taxed at 25%. So is Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch's
(and so on...)
And so is all of yours.  EVERYONE'S is, in fact.

So, see... when you cut the bottom tier tax rate, EVERYONE benefits from it. When you cut the TOP rate, only the rich benefit.

Likewise, when you raise the bottom tier rate, you raise EVERYONE'S taxes. (Unless you do what Reagan did in 1987, having a top tier rate that was LOWER than the middle-tier, the great fellatiator!)  So even though that poor, suffering Billionaires will be paying a little more that they would have if Obama had extended ALL of the tax cuts, they are STILL paying less than they would have had no action been taken, on account of them keeping the same benefit we all got from those lower tier rates.

What do you know: Obama STILL hasn't raised income taxes!

Now, yes, we can talk about the taxes that are associated with "Obamacare" (again: a nae that Republicans gave to their own plan, once they realized how many even of their own people hated it) but that's a much more complicated discussion, as it involves an objective discussion of how broken our health care system was BEFORE.  And it remains to be seen, going forward, if the various taxes, benefits, regulations, restrictions and markets/exchanges will bring a net benefit or net harm.  And on a personal level, that depends largely on whether you currently have health insurance or not, if you can afford it, and if you can afford it down the road. A worthy discussion, to be fair, but not what we're talking about HERE.

One final note: I came out pretty big for Capitalism in this post, albeit the regulated Capitalism of 40's, 50's and 60's, not the laissez-faire Capitalism of the 20's (which didn't end well, you may recall) or the Reaganomics that continues pretty much to this day. (Until I see a top-tier rate over 50%, we haven't substantively left Reaganomics yet!) I'd still proudly describe myself as a "Free-Market Liberal" or "Progressive Capitalist" and see no contradiction in doing so, at all.

To SOME EXTENT, Gordon Gecko was right: Greed is (or can be) good. Greed WORKS. (or CAN.)

And I do believe that for many things, the free market and the profit motive, assuming there's good, fair, open competition and well-informed choice, will generally distribute goods, services and income in a fair and equitable way. (Or at least the best possible way over time.) And while there may be others, I really see only four areas in our society that should be kept completely isolated from the pursuit of profit. And while, sadly, so many seem to disagree with me on these, I really can't see how these are anything but universal:

1) Education. Education is neither a right, not a privilege: It's a OBLIGATION. Of both a society to educate, and the people within it to become educated. And it an obligation that should be fulfilled by passing on OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE, not just the clap-trap that Corporations want to teach you in order to make you better voters and consumers (for them.) And make no mistake: The Right, and their 1% Corporate Masters, FEAR an educated populace. (And so does any Government in general.) Let's keep it that way!

2)  Medicine. This one's easy. Just ask yourself, Do you want your Doctor making medical decision based on what's best for the Hospital's shareholders, or YOU, the patient. I think all sane people will say, "To hell with the Hospital's shareholders!" if the alternative is that they receive sub-standard or mediocre medical treatment.  WELL... if you want that for yourself, you have to willing to grant it to everyone else. Otherwise, you're just a selfish little ass-wipe!

3) Justice. This one SHOULD be easy, but we actually HAVE a for-profit prison system. Oh, it "works," meaning it saves us money, provided that the jails remain FULL. Well, one "three strike and you're out" law signed by that great "Liberal" Bill Clinton, and we're now incarcerating a greater percentage of our population than CHINA does!  (What, did you think that bill had something to do with CRIME?! OH, HELLS' NO!: It was entirely created by ALEC to make the for-profit prison system "work!" Look it up!)  In any case, I don't think even the idiotic Conservatives who thought that "3-strikes" had something to do with being "tough on crime" would want to have a Judge making a decision that affected them based on economics rather that the evidence presented before the court.

and...

4) The Military. Duh. Private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan have been expensive, wasteful and (in some eyes) guilty of War Crimes. They cost more than our troops and do a worse job. Not to mention... All the top Republican brass all now admit that Iraq was all about OIL and MONEY in the first place!  What do you know? EISENHOWER WAS RIGHT. And the profit-motive makes for REALLY FUCKING TERRIBLE foreign policy decisions.

Aside from those four areas?

I'm 100% a Capitalist. Just like President Obama & company are.

-----------------------------

(One more thing... Something funny... every time I read about President Obama being described as a "Kenyan" I always read it, "Keynesian."  Which becomes REALLY wierd when he'd called a "SECRET Kenyan." Because I read it "Secret Keynesian" and think, "Shit, that's not a particularly well-kept secret, is it?!")

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Last 40 by 40 Update

And no, not because I'm quitting!

I'm still doing it, but over the next couple of days, I'm going to be changing the layout of the blog around a bit, and rather than doing daily updates as posts, I'm just going to put a little box over on the side that will update my progress.  I'm also going to try and update my Facebook and Twitter accounts, so as I do my maintenance, if anyone gets "de-friended" please don't take it personally. Just tap me back, and I'll put you back in. (I am going to be do some clean up though.)

Also, since I last posted, I've had repeated issues with Viruses. Ransomeware - first the FBI, then the "Compute Crimes Agency," then the Department of Justice, all wanted me to pay $300.00 for my "compute crimes."  I guess it was all the kiddie-porn I keep downloading. (No, I'm joking.)  Anyway, it screwed me up, so despite the fact that I didn't post on Thursday, I DID get to the gym, albeit a bit later in the evening than I had planned.  My update would have read like this:

Date: 3/14/13 (Day 19)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 205.0
Morning Weight: 203.7 (BMI: 31.0)
Pounds Down: 11
Pounds to go: 29
Days Left: 189
Workout Summary: 403 Calories

And again on Friday I was down again:

Date: 3/15/13 (Day 20)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 204.7
Morning Weight: 202.9 (BMI: 30.8) Boo-yah!
Pounds Down: 12
Pounds to go: 28
Days Left: 188
Workout Summary: None

BUT... Then we went out to dinner, for DW's Birthday.  I figured, 'I'm way ahead of schedule, so I'll go off the diet for one night and enjoy myself..."

Date: 3/15/13 (Day 21)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 209.1 (!!!)
Morning Weight: 206.4 (BMI: 31.4) (Fuuuuck!)
Pounds Down: 9 (argh!)
Pounds to go: 31
Days Left: 187
Workout Summary: 1689 Calories. Yes, that's right: I spent 3 hours at the gym this morning, to try and get back on track.  Longest workout ever.

Aaaaand I just took my "bedtime weight" and it was 207.2.  So that one meal is going to set me back a couple of days. Oh well. Kind of sucks, but... Well it was one of the best meals I've ever had, so it was worth it!  Still kind of sucks that I let it happen just as was hitting my stride.  I'll be beck in tomorrow, but I don't think I'll do three hours again.  1.5 to 2, most likely just the 1000-Calories version. I've got too much to do to do that both days of the weekend.



Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Data and Statistics

Date: 3/12/13 (Day 17)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 208.2
Morning Weight: 206.7 (BMI: 31.4)
Pounds Down: 9
Pounds to go: 31
Days Left: 191
Workout Summary: Elliptical Climber, 33 min, 413 Cal; Lateral, 33 min, 361 Cal; Rope, 10 min, 302

Kicking ass tonight, and feeling GREAT!



Now, Anonymous left a a comment in my last post about how it seemed like I was stuck at my current weight.  And from a certain perspective, it might seem that way.  See, I'm updating just about every day, taking data every day, and so... not much visible progress.  Some weight loss guru's tell you NOT to take your weight every day for that very reason - it will seem stagnant and you'll get discouraged.

But I'm an engineer, and the resident "statistics guru" in my office, even amongst other engineers. I LIKE data. I like to see trends. I like to study them, and analyse it. It's kind of a sickness.  But it's part of just about everything I do.  So I'd like you to take a look at this:


This is a scatter plot of all the weight data I've taken, just about all of which has been reported previously in this blog. Blue line is "morning weight," Red line (at Anonymous' suggestion) is "bedtime weight."  Now, of course I could play with the scale to make the graph look more or less dramatic, (one of the few relatively honest Fox News tricks) but despite fluctuations, I think it's easy to see that the trend is clearly DOWNWARD.

Also, because I'm taking a morning and night weight, I have some other information as well. (Thanks again, Anonymous. Best thing you've posted yet.) (Well, the only thing of value, actually, but still.) I know that, since 3/2, when I started collecting this data, I've averaged a gain of 1.50 pounds during the day, against an average loss of 1.77 pounds at night.  And that does NOT include any data prior to that, like the first couple days, when I was losing well over a pound a day. (Water loss.)  So, on average, I've been losing 0.27 pounds per day, just over the past week and a half.  As my goal was to lose 40 pounds, in 208 days, (0.19 pounds per day,) so far, I'm well on track.  And actually from where I am now, to my birthday in September, I only have to average just under 0.17 pounds per day, so I'm really well on track, especially if I can get past this apparent wall I'm hitting right now.  (Which, BTW, is very common, and similar to other times that I've done this in years past. Another week or so, and things SHOULD start moving a little quicker.)

In any case, the reason I point all this out, is that you have to be careful when you're looking at small bits of data at a time. You know... kind of like how a few years of steady global temperatures doesn't mean that Global Warming is over!

;)

Monday, March 11, 2013

It needs to be said...

...Or, assuming it's probably already been said upwards of a million times in the last 24 hours, it bears repeating:

FUCK HAMID KARZAI.

And far be it for me to fault our top diplomat for being, well, diplomatic about things, but I think Secretary Hagel's response would have better sounding something like, "Listen, dickhead, you're both alive and gainfully employeed right now becuase of us and us alone, so you just keep talkin' smack about the U.S. and we can pull our forces out of your country tomorrow. And then lots of luck, asshole!"




---------FORTY-BY-FORTY-UPDATE---------
Date: 3/11/13 (Day 16)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 207.6
Morning Weight: 205.8 (BMI: 31.3)
Pounds Down: 9
Pounds to go: 31
Days Left: 192
Workout Summary: (night off)

Sunday, March 10, 2013

40 x 40 update

Date: 3/10/13 (Day 15)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 209.1
Morning Weight: 206.9 (BMI: 31.5)
Pounds Down: 8
Pounds to go: 32
Days Left: 193
Workout Summary: Eliptical Climber, 33 min, 385 cal; Rope, 10 min, 209 cal; Total: 594
(Yeah, felt like crap tonight. So I cut it short. Back in on Tuesday.)

Saturday, March 9, 2013

The War on Women

A few posts back, Anonymous (dude, seriously, please: Pick a fucking name if you're going to be a regular commenter. If anyone else decides to post anonymously, it's going to confuse the hell out of everyone) told me that there was no Rebublican War on Women. That it was as fictitious as the Liberals' War on Christmas.  Well, I suppose he's half right.

Considering that the Violence Against Women act passed despite Republican inaction and opposition, the fact that the Republican Platform now wants to outlaw abortion WITHOUT a rape exception, that fact that, on top of that, they fight mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives which, as Sandra Fluke so eloquently pointed out last year, puts women's health at risk when insurance companies refuse to pay for their MEDICAL use (such as the treatment of endometriosis) on the ground that they don't cover CONTRACEPTIVES, the fact that the defunded Planned Parenthood, one of the leading providers of Cancer Screenings, Pre-Natal Care, and Family Planning services for poor women, the fact that they opposed equal pay for Women, the Lilly Ledbetter act and equal employment opportunities...

The only reason that any women should vote Republican would be that she's a religious nut-bag or terminally misinformed. (Or just plain fucking stupid.) If you have any doubts of this, here's a brilliant piece for the defacto mouthpiece of the Right Wing in America:



WOW, right?

Also curious is this...



Yeah, there's no War on Women here!

As offensive as it is that he mocks domestic violence, date rape, and every other form of violence that countless women face every day in this country, and the bill that provides training to law enforcement to properly fight against it, the hypocrisy of this partiuclar stand makes it more disgusting by an order of magnitude:

Estimates of the number of women that are the victims of violence every year range form 600,000 to 6 Million (http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/abusiverelationships/a/physicalabusestatistics.htm) and yet, this act - which does nothing more that TRAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT, and has been effective in reducing the rate of occurrence of this crime since its passage in 1994 - is treated like a joke.

And yet, this is the same Party that is perfectly happy disenfranchising millions of people, and going out of their way to make it more difficult for people to exercise the FUNDAMENTAL, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to VOTE, due to their fears of "voter fraud."  A crime in which actual cases (of in-person voter fraud) numbered in the SINGLE DIGITS in the past few elections.

You know what? Fuck these people! Seriously.



----------FORTY-X-FORTY-UPDATE---------
Date: 3/9/13 (Day 14)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 209.1
Morning Weight: 207.7 (BMI: 31.6)
Pounds Down: 8
Pounds to go: 32
Days Left: 194
Workout Summary: Eliptical Climber, 33 min, 403 cal; Rope, 10 min, 253 cal; Bike, 35 min, 271 cal; Eliptical, 13 min, 142 cal. Light/Short weights. TOTAL: 1069 Calories.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Hey, Anonymous:


LOL. (Watch Game of Thrones!)

And BTW, the time will eventually come...

 
Better get familiar with Determinism!

------------------FORTY-X-FORTY-UPDATE-----------

Date: 3/7/13 (Day 12)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 208.7
Morning Weight: 206.9 (BMI: 31.5)
Pounds Down: 8
Pounds to go: 32
Days Left: 196
Workout Summary: Eliptical Climber, 33 min, 404 cal
(Short workout, today/tonight was way too hectic. I just ran out of time.)

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

40 by 40 update

Date: 3/5/13 (Day 10)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 210.0
Morning Weight: 207.8 (BMI: 31.6)
Pounds Down: 8
Pounds to go: 32
Days Left: 198
Workout Summary: Eliptical Climber, 33 min, 400 cal; Rope, 10 min, 237 cal; Stairs (FUCK!), 10 min, 81 cal; Rowing, 10 min, 35 cal; Lateral, 17 min, 169 cal; SmartStride, 12 min, 120 cal = 1042 Total Calories.

WTF is up with ROWING?! 3.5 Calories per minute? Christ, I propably burn more than that watching TV and eating Cheetohs!



Bleach kicks so much ass!

Monday, March 4, 2013

What it feels like sometimes...


Not you guys though. You guys rock. I mean other people. ;)


--------------------------------------
Date: 3/4/13 (Day 9)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 208.2
Morning Weight: 206.7 (BMI: 31.4)
Pounds Down: 8
Pounds to go: 32
Days Left: 199
Workout Summary: None. Resting. And DW has her classes.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

40 by 40 Update

Date: 3/3/13 (Day 8)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 210.4
Morning Weight: 207.8 (BMI: 31.6)
Pounds Down: 7
Pounds to go: 33
Days Left: 200
Workout Summary: Elliptical Climber (388), Rope (237), Lateral (257), Standard Elliptical (245)

I don't plan on breaking it down every time, but I really felt like crap tonight, and while that 1127 total was pretty close to yesterday's, it took a bit longer for me to do it. I was REALLY not firing on all cylinders tonight:

Elliptical Climber: 388 in 33 minutes = 11.75 per minute (11.9 yesterday)
Rope: 237 in 11 minutes = 21.5 per minute  (25.9 yesterday)
Lateral: 257 in 25 minutes = 10.3 per minute (9.8 yesterday)
Elliptical: 245 in 30 minutes = 8.2 per minute (10.1 yesterday)
(I didn't row tonight.)

Anyway, I'm looking forward to a night off tomorrow, as DW has Akido/Iaido Class in the evening.

And honestly I feel way too beat to be posting any inspirational music right now, so here's the Full Metal Alchemist, Edward Elric, his bother Alphonse and their frienemy Scar) getting the absolute shit kicked out of them by Lust, Gluttony, Envy, Greed, Sloth, Wrath and Pride (Who also spend a fair amount of time kicking the shit out of each other!) to Flogging Molly's Seven Deadly Sins:



OK, so you'll have to go to YouTube. I recomend watching it. This AMV is VERY well done!

And if you're interested, these clips are form the ORIGINAL "Fullmetal Alchemist" Anime, which totally fucking rocks. (And will actually make you cry at least once!) They did a more recent re-make, but IMHO it's unwatchable garbage. The original OTOH, absolutely kicks ass, and I guarantee will be amongst the best series you'll ever see.

Saturday, March 2, 2013

I forgot about this...

 I meant to say something about this earlier, but I forgot.

President Obama pissed of a LOT of Sci-Fi fans yesterday by saying he couldn't do a "Jedi Mind-Meld" with Congressional Republicans. (To get them to not tank the economy make a deal on the sequester.)  Now personally? I thought it was brilliant. I'm a huge Star Wars fan, and a small Start Trek fan, so I thought it was a great way to acknowledge BOTH fandoms at once, kind of cleverly and ironically.

BUT I totally forgot what a bunch of whiny little bitches so many Sci-Fi fans can be.

So rather than smile and appreciate the two-way shout out, they bitched about it. In the future, should he want to try something like that again, here's how he can piss of fans of Star Wars, Harry Potter and  Lord of the Rings all at the same time:

LOL. Beautiful.

Poor, Sad Rush Limbaugh

*shakes head*

So... just one year after Limbaugh started a mass exodus of advertisers from Right-WingRadio, that continues to this day, by responding to Women's Health Advocate Sandra Fluke's eloquent, emotional and medically sound testimony before Congress by calling her a "slut," on the air, and going on a three-day tear attacking her over what amounted to her sexual proclivities, as imagined by Rush Limbaugh,  the Great Gastropod has this to say about NFL Prospect Lauren Silverman:

Yes, Rush, as it turns out, women are people too.  It's a bitter pill to swallow, I know, but it turns out they can do a lot more than we give them  credit for.  Before you know it they'll want to be allowed to vote, and get the same pay as a man for doing the same job.  I mean... Who's going to make our sandwiches once that happens?!
In other news...
I would like to congratulate Danica Patrick on her strong finish at Daytona this year...
Eri Yoshida on her productive, if not spectacular, season in the North American Baseball League last year...
and my Wife who earned her 2nd Degree Brown Belt in Iaido last week.
What do you know,Rush? Women are people too!

Remember my "Republicans are Scum" post?

Well, MediaMatters did an excellent write up to Sean Hannity's continued Islamophobic attacks on Congressmen Keith Ellison, and Ellison's response that Hannity should be ashamed at being so immoral by saying so may things on the air that aren't true. Haniity, for his part, just amped up his attacks, but here's a list of 10 Examples of Sean Hannity saying things that aren't true.

If you don't want to read the whole post, here's the short list. If you [Conservatives] doubt any of these, don't bother arguing them here unless you first check out the citations and background evidence that MMFA presents. I grow weary of replying to such arguments with "read the fucking article."


10. Hannity Hyped RNC's Doctored Audio Of Supreme Court Arguments. [Media Matters, 3/30/12]

9. Hannity Distorted CBO Data To Attack Obama. [Media Matters, 2/2/12]

8. Hannity Falsely Claimed A White House Adviser "Advocated Compulsory Abortion." [Media Matters, 9/9/09]

7. Hannity Falsely Claimed Obama Called The Death Of Four Americans "Just A Bump In The Road."  [Media Matters, 9/25/12]

6. Hannity Spread False Report That Egypt Was Considering Necrophilia Bill.  [Media Matters, 4/30/12; Huffington Post, 4/26/12]

5. Hannity's Special On "Liberal Bias" Featured Wildly Distorted And Out-Of-Context Quotes.  [Media Matters, 4/24/11]

4. Hannity Cast Doubt On Scientific Consensus About Climate Change. [Media Matters, 12/4/09, 1/13/10, 8/27/10, 11/19/10, 6/24/11]

3. Hannity Fueled Myth That Obama Is A Muslim.  [Media Matters, 3/24/11, 3/21/12]

2. Hannity Fed The Birther Movement. [Media Matters, 3/28/11, 4/20/12]

1. Hannity Ignored Overwhelming Evidence To Repeatedly Claim Obama's Policies Have Not Helped Improve The Economy. [Media Matters, 1/13/10, 7/14/11, 2/2/12]


And remember... This is a man who's paid approximately $20,000,000 per year - enough to hire over 500 School Teacher, about 230 Engineers, or 80 Medical Doctors.

And as interesting as I'm sure it will be to see some anonymous Conservative poster try to debunk ANY of these as not being actual false hoods, I defy that same poster, or indeed any Conservative to give me a similar list for say, Rachael Maddow, or Keith Olberman, or Ed Shultz, or Chris O'Donnell, or MMFA for that matter!

(Remember when William tried that? He posted one example of MMFA ADMITTING they got something wrong, one example that was clearly a true statement, and one that was said (by some RW website) to contain misinformation, which turned out to be taken verbatim from the subject's own tax returns!)

I'm sure any Conservative could come up with a list of 10 examples of things that were said by one of these people that were LIBERAL, but I'll vote a strait Republican ticket in the 2014 mid-terms if they can come up with a list of 10 examples of things that were said by one of these people that were actually FALSE. Lots of luck!

40 by 40 Update

Date: 3/2/13
Morning Weight: 209.4*
Pounds Down: 6
Pounds to Go: 34
Days Left: 201
Workout Summary: Elliptical Climber: 394 Calories, Ropes: 259, Lateral: 226, Rowing: 72, Elliptical: 182

BOOM! That's 1133 Calories, motherfuckers! YEAH!

Curious thing...

Elliptical Climber: 394 Calories in 33 Minutes = 11.9 Calories per minute

Ropes: 259 Calories in 10 Minutes = 25.9 Calories per minute (And I believe it - this is EXHAUSTING)

Lateral: 226 Calories in 23 Minutes = 9.8 Calories per minute

Rowing: 72 Calories in 10 Minutes = 7.2 Calories per minute

Standard Elliptical: 182 Calories in 18 Minutes = 10.1 Calories per minute

Look at how inefficient Rowing is!  No wonder we invented motorboats! (And no wonder THOSE are still painfully inefficient!)

BTW... That "*" on my morning weight... That's actually UP from a 207.9 that I neglected to post yesterday. That's OK. No reason to panic. The trend line still goes steadily downward. And I know form past experience (and a basic understanding of math, science, statistics, engineering and commons sense) that TRENDS like these have NOISE. And the occasional datapoint going against the trend does not change the long term trend.

Hmmm... That sounds like something someone ought to tell those idiots over at Fox news (or the idiots who watch Fox News) every time Sean Hannity or Brian Kilmeade try to debunk Golbal Warming by pointing out that it snowed today, no?

Anyway, I felt like shit when I started today (hence my coming in below 400 Cal's on the Elliptical Climber) by I feel awesome right now.  So here you go:


Friday, March 1, 2013

Big News Day for Conservatives

The Pope has resigned for the first time since 1415 and the Republicans have managed to tank the economy for the first time since 2008. 

Remember folks: Things started getting BETTER around March of 2009. That's when talk of stimulus started, and once that hit it's when the Stock markets turned around, it's when unemployment turned around, it when economic growth turned around.  And despite all they they kept saying "Obama made it worse," lacking even a single, solitary economic indicator that was on a negative trend to support their claims.

Assuming nothing is done to prevent massive cuts that were never supposed to happen?  Let's see who they blame, now that things are ACTUALLY going to get worse? As if I have to ask.

Mr. President?  THIS is why you need to stop these bi-partisan outreach efforts, that will be domed to fail.  The Republicans are traitorous scum who will consistently put party, self, and ideology ahead of Country, and remain more interested in your failure than the country's success. 

President Obama and the Democrats stop this "everyone has a hand in it" nonsense. They need to call out Shitty Republican Policies, like Austerity, for what they are: SHITTY REPUBLICAN POLICIES. For Christ's sake come out swinging!  The Republicans haven't done a thing right for this country since Eisenhower! And it's about time the American People were reminded of that.